The people dismissing this somewhat miss the bigger picture, that statistically this had to happen because there are so many like him there.
Though I’m not sure why this guy calls the act ‘fantastic’, I doubt even the shooter thought what he did was fantastic, unless I’m out of the loop…
In this context I read fantastic in a morally indifferent sense, as in it set him apart from others and allowed him to leave an impression on the world, albeit a hugely harmful one.
Fantastic has the word fantasy as its root, but the meaning has shifted and that usage has fallen out of favor a bit. The same happened to terrific, which is an even greater oddity, terror being the root. The act was both fantastic and terrific but not in the most common contemporary usage of those words.
Notorious (as a subgroup of famous) would have been a better word choice. They got the point across reasonably well otherwise, however.
Problematic is that some people try to frame it as if his problems were the cause and reason for his actions. While obviously the point where people turn into mass shooters is when they decide to hate and blame (a specific group of) other people for it.
There is far from enough help for people who are struggling, but to prevent mass shootings the media probably shouldn’t talk about them this much and we need to look at people much closer who turn their hatred outwards.
Fantastic could mean unusual or extraordinary.
Or following through on a fantasy.
I think by fantastic the 4channer meant “newsworthy”, or “that really affects people’s lives”. The chances of someone with that kind of background doing something fantastic in a good sense is really small
No. You’ve just described the life of most people on Earth outside of American suburbia. Most of us don’t mass murder with machine guns.
That only happens in America because you’ve chosen to elect people who make sure crazy people can exercise your Constitutional right to carry machine guns and stand your ground when King Charles comes on your property or you carry your emotional support machine guns to a protest. That’s not “society’s” fault. It’s every single Republican MAGA protect the second amendment voter.
You’ve just described the life of most people on Earth outside of American suburbia.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
Damn, life looking pretty grim homes. King Charles?!
deleted by creator
most people on Earth outside of American suburbia
Inside. You mean inside of American suburbia, the depressing, isolating, boring American suburbia. People in the first world outside of America have social nets and help from the society if they’re on the downswing. People in first world go to therapist when they feel bad about circumstances of their lives, not into sporting shop to buy a gun.
But you’re completely right, the situation when people can go to a random shop and buy a gun is fucking insane.you can’t acquire an automatic weapon, or “machine gun”, in the US without either an FFL, or buying an expensive as fuck and extremely rare automatic gun from pre-1986. You might see firearms with fire rates similar to automatic weapons as a result of illegal modifications, like that of the bump stock, but there are also less reversible modifications someone might end up doing. Anyways that’s more like a theoretical, really stupid correction for me to make, because it’s kind of up in the air as to whether or not automatic weapons would even be more effective if you wanted to kill a lot of people, as military doctrine generally employs them (full auto) as suppression or cover fire, making active zones of danger which enemies can’t pass through or fire from, rather than for the use of killing people. Though, the military doesn’t really tend to kill large unarmed groups of people, or, they prefer to do that with drone strikes, anyways. You don’t really care about any of that, though, probably.
I would also like to posit that probably america has a unique combination of factors which spurn on violence. Insane amounts of wealth disparity, probably only comparable to some places in the middle east, if that, but also a sense of entitlement towards middle class living, aka the “american dream”, which creates a kind of scorn and spite in the american mind when that middle class ideal is denied, or revealed as false. The way that these ideologies work is that they say that X is entitled to middle class living, that they deserve it, but that Y minority or Y oppressed group is in the way.
Also, these mass shootings, mass shootings of this specific type, tend to be relatively rare. Or at least, not as big of a problem as the media would have you believe, relative to: the vast majority of firearm violence, which primarily happens with handguns, and is related to gang violence (this category includes shootings by the police). Which is quite obviously related to poverty, and the protection of drugs as a high-value good that obviously can’t be protected by the actual government. So you see a local monopoly of force evolve taking advantage of the poor in order to bring themselves to a more economically workable position, yadda yadda, I’m sure you’ve heard that story before. And then on top of that you have handgun suicide comprising somewhere between half and a third of all gun deaths (I can’t quite remember).
All that considered, in combination with a lack of political will to get rid of guns, for somewhere around half the population, I’d probably make the prescription that you would see a better drop in violence from the legalization, or decriminalization, of drugs, universal mental healthcare, rectifying economic inequality, and of course, “common sense” gun laws, which would probably mostly apply to screenings for mental illness, primarily depression, but also conspiratorial thinking. The latter there, “common sense” gun laws, I think is agreeable to the majority of the population.
deleted by creator
You may want to adjust your term “assault rifles” to “scary black rifles.”
Assault rifles are a type of machine gun, to be an assault rifle it must have select fire, semi and full/burst.
The second wasn’t drafted only for protection, but also for government oversight.
Nobody outside of the USA gives a shit about the distinction.
Most of us in the US also don’t give a shit about the gun pedants and their attempts to disrupt the conversation again like they always do
The “sad” fact is that most people outside of the US don’t know the difference, because outside of perhaps a hunting store, or rarely seeing armed police in airports/during police incidents, most people have never seen a gun.
Also everybody living outside USA is dirt poor woth zero prospects and low IQ apparently.
Not really sure what matters in this context.
deleted by creator
Ok. Not that anybody asked.
True, also make any lethal weapon illegal in usa
So, start with hands? Water? Rocks?
arms… of any kind.
In America, we should have the right to the while bear, not just the arms.
Or, you know, we could just reallocate these egregiously huge military/police funds to healthcare + infrastructure. There are innumerable reasons people in this country are driven to violence but the number one is the violence it inflicts on us.
Pretty fucked to watch people blame doctors for mass shootings, because the pro-gun crowd doesn’t want anyone blaming guns.
The Maine shooter received urgent, emergency mental healthcare. 2 weeks in a psychiatric ward, being given daily treatment and observation by doctors, who did everything they could to stabilise him.
What did you want them to do? There’s no instant, perfect cure. There’s no pill or surgery to fix “I want to kill as many people as I can with my legal firearms”.
Or does the group constantly bleating about “freedom” want to indefinitely hold people against their will in a psychiatric ward, for the crime of “not being healthy enough to sell guns to”?
Doctors need months to stabilise a patient and potentially years for full remission. Since America is fucked, they also need someone to cover the tens of thousands of dollars since for-profit insurance companies and for-profit politicians will do everything they can ensure it isn’t them.
But the gun manufacturers only need a couple of days and a few hundred bucks for everything they need to kill everyone in sight. The far-right politicians, media companies, sock puppets and suckers have already been working on them for years, making sure they know exactly who their targets should be when they snap.
It took the gun lobby 25 years to find their perfect excuse – “It’s a mental health problem”. A tidy little catch phrase that sounds right if you don’t think about it, that demands we jump a hurdle that will cost tens of billions of dollars and take 50 more years of medical research.
But it’s no more bullshit than “violent video games” or “not enough prayer” or “too many doors” was.
If America has 20 social problems causing people to use their legal firearms to kill as many people as possible, then America has 20 reasons why the current gun laws are hopelessly insufficient for the society they’re supposed to serve and the pro-gun crowd has 20 things they need to fix if they want to indiscriminately sell that society guns.
The Maine shooter received urgent, emergency mental healthcare. 2 weeks in a psychiatric ward, being given daily treatment and observation by doctors, who did everything they could to stabilise him.
Hey, uh, about that. Just because someone gets sent to a mental ward doesn’t mean they’re getting properly treated. I’ve been in one before, they did nothing to help me and I left with the same problems I had before, except they gave me PTSD too. They didn’t release me because they thought they’d helped me, they released me because they believed they couldn’t help me (what the fuck?). I’ve talked to other people and many of them had similar experiences. There’s this myth that all mental health services are the same, but they aren’t; especially when you are the emergency mental health service for the area. I’m not saying that we don’t need better gun control, but what I am saying is that the US mental healthcare system is a burning trash fire, especially emergency services, and needs a lot of help, if not a straight-up overhaul.
Edit: it doesn’t help that, iirc, there’s a maximum holding period for people with mental health issues. A normal hospital can hold a patient for years while they’re being treated, but what I’ve been told is that, as a result of the abuse 19th-20th century psychiatric wards would inflict on their patients, there is a maximum duration that mental health wards are allowed to hold patients (not sure if this is federal or just some states). Additionally, because they are typically private companies, they tend to put profit above health. The result is that some places will hold patients long after they’re healthy enough to leave because the hospital is draining their bank accounts. Alternatively, sometimes they release patients long before they’ve healed because the patient doesn’t have any more money.
“America’s mental healthcare system is amazing and flawless” wasn’t the point of my post, nor a view I hold.
There is no mental healthcare system that could possibly be built that would make America’s gun laws safe.
If you know a way they could have prevented this, please share it with the world – they’d love to know the cure for these problems.
The reality is that the pro-gun “it’s a mental health problem” is functionally identical to saying “cigarettes aren’t the issue, we just need more oncologists”
I think you’re misunderstanding my point as well. Your statement implied they released him because they believed him to be mentally well, but what I’m saying is that just because they released him doesn’t mean he was mentally well.
We do need better gun control. We also need existing gun control to actually be enforced. His two-week stay should have disqualified him from owning a gun, yet it sounds like he was not only allowed to continue to own guns, but he was allowed to continue to work as a firearms instructor. That shouldn’t happen.
To be clear about something, I’m someone who believes that people should have a path to being able to own guns, including actual high-power weapons like anti-materiel rifles, if they want to. However, not everyone should be able to get one, in order to do so they should be required to pass tests, mental health evaluations and background checks, the depth of which would increase with the power of the weapon (a basic double-barreled shotgun would be easier to get than a Browning M2, the latter of which would involve a metaphorical colonoscopy and MRI courtesy of the FBI and ATF). Additionally, I believe there should be laws about what can or can’t be advertised as gun storage; many lockboxes, for an example, are often advertised as being a good solution for gun storage. However, they’re often so flimsy and weak that a toddler could open one by accident without even needing a key. Finally, I believe that if your gun is used in a crime, then you should be considered complicit; with your only defense being that your gun was properly secured prior to the crime and that you reported the weapon as missing the moment you discovered it to be gone (aka within a reasonable amount of time).
I know this runs against the views a lot of people around here have as it would permit someone to own a heavy machine gun if they wanted to. However, if I’m not mistaken, there is at least one European country (possibly more) with similar systems. Finland, for an example (unless this was changed within the past 5yrs or so), allows you to own any firearm. The catch is that it’s very hard to legally obtain something like a Browning M2 because you have to have a museum/collector’s license and justify your purchase, which can be difficult to do. You also have to be willing to let the cops stop by and check in on you whenever they feel like it, even if that happens to be at 3am. Yet Finland doesn’t have the issues that the US does because they’re very strict about who can or can’t buy weapons and which weapons they can buy.
The reason why I hold this view is because I believe people should be allowed to do what they want so long as they aren’t hurting others directly or indirectly (within reason, otherwise christofascists could claim gay people are hurting them spiritually or some bullshit). I know there are tons of people out there who could be trusted to own, take care of, and properly store pretty much any firearm imaginable. A law that completely bars them from being able to own a firearm because of something that another person, or group of people, have done just doesn’t sit right with me. However, I also recognize that it’s far too easy for people to be able to acquire a gun and we need more restrictions in order to weed out the people who’d use them to harm others.
Edit: I guess what I was trying to say, or what I wanted to say, is that in my opinion, gun control is like painkillers for a broken leg. The painkillers help, but if the cause of the pain isn’t addressed then you’ll eventually end up back where you started. Would it decrease the number of mass shootings? Yeah, probably. However if you don’t fix the mental health system and normalize mental healthcare, you’ll probably get people who are even more radicalized and aren’t afraid of resorting to other measures.
So in other words, America isn’t doing well enough socially for the current gun laws to work, but Republicans will staunchly oppose any attempt to address the underlying problems and everything they can to enable mass shooters.
But your “people should be able to own whatever they want” is self-absorbed trash. Why should thousands of people have to politely tolerate the risk to their lives just so some reactionary with a limp dick can own a minigun?
There is literally nothing in it for the public. The people who wouldn’t wear a mask in a pandemic aren’t going to lay down their lives for democracy. The guns haven’t lowered the crime rate at all, they’ve just added a layer of gun violence to it. Minorities are still executed in the street by the state and if they have a gun anywhere near them, there won’t even be an investigation.
You didn’t fully read my message dude. I know this because you brought the “gun self-defense” argument into this, which I didn’t bring up. Additionally, I don’t even own a gun. I don’t trust myself with one because I’m highly likely to take my own life with it if I had one. However, go ahead and tell me how I’m self-absorbed for thinking that there are plenty of people who could be trusted with one. Then again, I crave the sweet release of death and the idea that I might not have to live another day is very appealing, so maybe I just want to get shot in a mass shooting, right?
I already laid out my thoughts on how gun control could be improved. I gave an example of a country with a similar system and it seems to be working pretty fucking well for them, and it’s something which is better than the nothing that’s currently happening.
At the end of the day though, it’s not like it matters. American politicians only respond to threats of violence or when minorities get “”“too uppity”“” and “”“don’t know their place”“”. So what’s the point? Why even bother? It’s not like the US will get any better; it’s only going to keep getting worse. Why even bother caring…
Nice strawman argument you have there. Nobody is blaming doctors.
You must have the head of a scarecrow if you think that’s a strawman.
It is tho haha u literally can’t point to anywhere in this thread that was said.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=us+blame+mental+health+mass+shootings
The world extends beyond the thread you’re reading.
None of the links in that search support your argument. Saything that mass shootings are a mental health crisis, or a healthcare crisis (regardless of whether either is true) is not the same as blaming doctors for it.
Negative.
deleted by creator
There are also loads of guns that are old enough that there is no way we could know who owns them. I legally possess a firearm that I’m the 4th person it’s been handed down to, and it didn’t even start in my family. There is no way it could be tracked by a law enforcement agency looking to get all the guns. I used to live in Illinois, and the law there says the gun seller has to maintain the sale record for 10 years. So, after 10 years, it becomes super hard to track. It would be a logistics nightmare to try and confiscate them all.
What a stupid take. Other than a few far right idiots, nobody is going to risk their life over a gun. And those oh so tough gravy seals are going to roll over at the first sign of serious pushback. That just leaves the real nutcases that definitely shouldn’t have guns in the first place. And the police being unwilling to do their job is an argument for police reform not for inaction.
An everyday hammer can be turned into a lethal weapon, should I not be allowed to have finger nails just because I could scratch someone to death?
We can make it harder to get a gun. But there are so many already in the US its difficult to rein that back in.
More guns is the solution, like in schools. Arm the custodians! Arm the vice-principals! Arm the unarmed!
Tangential, I find the push to arm teachers so weird. I can only imagine the job offers. “Your job will require you to teach children, raise them and show kindness and compassion. Also you need to kill them if they start shooting.”
“Also while working in war zones might come with danger pay, you’re a teacher so we will pay you barely starvation wages and you’ll have to buy supplies from your personal money.”
I support gun rights but I think it’s crazy to think about arming teachers. It just seems like such a disconnect to me.
Well if you support more people having guns, it’s inevitable people are going to look for solutions to some of those people shooting up schools
We should probably train the cops not to run away like a bunch of cowards.
There’s been a few shootings where the school had a cop on duty, who was armed, and the cop ran out of the building when the shooting started.
Should be a crime to abandon people, let alone children, like that
I agree. I get being scared but you signed up to do the job.
I was a volunteer cop for many years. I cringe when I hear about cops refusing to enter a building or running away from the gun fight.
I get there are times when it makes sense, single gunman barricaded in a room, yeah, maybe wait for more people or SWAT but they could have saved many lives by doing something.
Hell most of these turds shot themselves when confronted. It is rare for there to be a shootout with the cops.
Why I believe in police reform so badly. I admit I want a unicorn, but I want a cop who is compassionate and enforces the law without prejudice. A person who can see it from the lens of the person who he is dealing with but can also kick ass when needed.
Combining your comment and another one talking about how America’s mental health also sucks and often makes illnesses worse the thing about America is that everything is corrupted and lazly done ether it be our politicians or the medical field we have the services people need but corruption is making it so when shit happens to you you might as well be on your own
Also, it’s the same people who trust teachers with guns in the classroom that think teachers can’t be trusted with books in the classroom.
Arm all of the kids while we’re at it. Only a good kid with a gun can stop a bad kid with a gun.
You know how many babies get abducted from hospitals?! Arm them too!
I dunno about you and yours, but my babies come from the stork with arms
Oh shit, better do nothing then.
deleted by creator
Not what i said.
Just have the same beuracroracy you have for vehicles. Yearly registration. And same licensing as liquor. Only licensed sellers.
Implement a buyback program like Australia did. They stopped the sales and paid above market value for any gun for a certain period of time. It works.
deleted by creator
Australia had nowhere near the saturation of gun ownership America has, and the common firearms there were simpler and cheaper. A gun buy-back would be much more expensive.
Then there’s the differences in public sentiment. It’s pretty obvious the American right-wing would overwhelmingly refuse to sell their guns at any price, and they represent the majority of gun owners. With current lefty distrust of police and rising extremists in the right, left wing gun owners don’t seem likely to willingly disarm either. If anything I’ve seen an uptick in leftists arming themselves.
But even if I’m wrong, a buy-back would do nothing if we don’t stop the sales of new guns first which would require an amendment to the Constitution effectively repealing one of the bill of rights. That’s pretty much the highest hurdle possible in the American government.
No, I say illegal, not harder to get.
Yes and that’s why we’re all making fun of you now.
A Regular Day In The Life Of The American
You wake up in the morning to the sound of your padded alarm clock going off. You remove your one thin sheet, after all, it could suffocate someone if air couldnt pass through it. You think about when it used to be legal to use pillows, those were good days.
As you start to get ready for school, you begin to tape your pants together, as is tradition since belts got banned. You pull your shirt on and the fibers get stuck in your beard that you havent been able to shave in years.
You walk the several miles to school, and think to yourself that the air smells a lot better since all vehicles were banned. Your teacher starts to tell you to take out your pencils, until she remembers. She must not’ve gotten enough sleep last night. You shrug, it has been cold this winter.
Slippery slope is really slippery today, huh?
Not much of a slippey slope when his exact words were “ban all lethal weapons”
If he meant guns, he should’ve said that.
You post something mindnumbingly stupid and people are going to ridicule you.
Ehh, between the bad-faith interpretation, their bad wording, your bad example and also failure in effectiveness as ridicule, the lack of anything new in this entire comment section…
Idc. Gonna pack it up on this one. Go nuts.
Yeah slap more bandaids on the issue. That’ll fix it.
“Any lethal weapon” lmao dumbass. Just because you’re not allowed to touch the kitchen knives doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.
Okay then start with sensible gun laws, most countries know how to implement them except the US.
Completely agree.
And what have you and your fuckfaced, pro-gun friends fixed in 25 years of insisting you alone have the solutions? Which have your bullshit promises have come true?
You’ve enthusiastically pushed America the closest to authoritarianism out of any wealthy country. Property crime is no rarer than anywhere else, it’s just got a layer of gun violence on top. You’ve enabled domestic terrorisism at frequency and lethality that makes Middle Eastern extremists blush. Minorities are executed on the street by police that go unpunished and thrown into for-profit prisons to be used as slave labor. The families you all insisted you were going to keep safe with your guns are scraping their children’s brains from the ceiling at an unprecedented rate.
It wasn’t violent video games. It wasn’t Marilyn Manson. It wasn’t Dungeons and Dragons. It wasn’t too many doors.
It was self absorbed dogshit like you and it has been the entire time.
This guy Cruz had a horrible life, there’s no doubt. But that doesn’t excuse his going out and committing mass murder. The people he killed did not make his life the misery that is was, and killing them only brings even more misery and murder into the world. There is no “fantastic” outcome. No mass murderer has ever caused a sea-change of how things are, as a result of the murder they commit.
The guy who shot up all those black people at the Tops Market in Buffalo - did he really think killing random black people, would stop black people from existing? Or prevent people from supporting black people? Mass murder never has the results these killers seem to think it will.
And how despicable to say that kids should be armed. No “Good kid” would ever murder another kid, whether that kid is good or bad. The minute you kill someone you’ve become a corrupt monster without redemption. GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM, they are NEVER the solution.
But it takes intelligence and maturity to see that. I am 65 years old. If you aren’t, I don’t expect you to understand and get why guns are so bad. So don’t bother to reply if you’re not old enough to get what I’m saying, it’s a waste of your time and mine also.
“I’m older, so I’m right”
“Excuse” isn’t what matters, only address, prevent, protect.
People make the same mistake without say child abuse. Doubling down on punishments without addressing the real harms of over punishing.
if it “excused” it, we’d say “oh, okay, on that case that’s fair. no further action needed”
what this does is explain it. and with the insight offered by this explanation, we can say, “oh, yes, I can see how this could have come about. now I know what to look for/do to prevent similar tragedies in future”
There is no “fantastic” outcome.
Fantastic != Good
No mass murderer has ever caused a sea-change of how things are, as a result of the murder they commit … Mass murder never has the results these killers seem to think it will.
And what results are those? I can’t speak for any spree killers, but I’ve never gotten the impression that they believed their killings would actually change anything. They typically seem to be acting purely out of revenge, albeit misplaced.
And how despicable to say that kids should be armed.
Who said that? The OP on 4 Chan didn’t. I haven’t seen anyone in these comments say that.
GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM, they are NEVER the solution.
Gun control would be an effective way to reduce gun violence, and on its own that’s a credible argument. But guns literally are not the problem. The problem is the fact that people want to lash out at society and the societal/governmental forces that push them there. I’m not saying guns are good or not to control them, just don’t forget you’re treating a symptom rather than the root problem. If we were to only pass gun control these problems will continue to fester. Again, I’m not saying don’t do it.
I am 65 years old. If you aren’t, I don’t expect you to understand
Most of the people in power and in the electorate who have been stonewalling gun control as well as any kind of social welfare programs that could prevent mass killings are older than 65. It is old indifference, or even contempt, that’s holding us back, not young ignorance.
No mass murderer has ever caused a sea-change of how things are, as a result of the murder they commit.
Mass murder never has the results these killers seem to think it will.
History is full of examples of people who murdered hundreds or thousands of people and not only got away with it, but became heroes for it.
Even recently, the killer of Shinzo Abe seems to have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
Violence is wrong, of course, but let’s not pretend that it never works.
“Hey man, you wanna be a star/take this, and show them who you are/make them pay in, blood for every scar/there’s no saving you, from the monster you are” - Bulletproof by From Ashes to New
So don’t bother to reply if you’re not old enough to get what I’m saying, it’s a waste of your time and mine also.
Wasting time is what I’m here for. Did you expect that gatekeeping responses to your own post would work?
Sounds like thinking is not something that he’s interested in doing.
I think you missed the point here. This shooter had no opportunities prested to him. He wasn’t smart enough or connected enough to ever be comfortable, let alone actually do something noteworthy. Being on the news for a day or two is the only “fantasy” he could possibly achieve. It not about causing a sea-change, it’s just about getting noticed.
He wasn’t born a monster, but violence was the only obvious route to having any impact on his surroundings.
American society loves guns and hates helping poor people, this is what we get.
Maybe he was just angry, too. Maybe he just wanted to express that anger and be heard for once.
No mass murderer has ever caused a sea-change of how things are, as a result of the murder they commit.
The exception that proves the rule being Martin Bryant at Port Arthur.
My fellow Americans just don’t give a shit about the death toll.
It’s not positive or what the shooters intended but I think Columbine had a significant cultural impact.
The guy who shot up all those black people at the Tops Market in Buffalo - did he really think killing random black people, would stop black people from existing?
No, he probably didn’t think it would stop black people from existing. Instead, he probably thought that he had no feasible options to do so, and if he were able to do anything as an individual, then it would be carrying out a mass shooting and trying to “make an impact.” These “manifesto” shooters are typically immersed in some kind of online group that promises to applaud and echo the violent behavior. Regardless, the outcome is awful.
EDIT: From an excerpt on the Buffalo shooter’s manifesto:
The author also expressed support for [other] far-right mass shooters
As much as 57% of the text-based ideological sections were plagiarized
It’s about being isolated from the real world, whether physically, mentally, or both, and then being sucked into a private group that idolizes bigotry/racism, violence, and other mass murderers.
Never skip your social studies classes, kids
Anon learns about Material Conditions.
How come none of these nutcases ever go shoot a billionaire or two instead of random Innocents?
Update: someone has. Billionaire in question was Brian Thompson, the UHC CEO
…with ready access to guns.
So much commentary here focusing on societal ills, but even in other countries with lots of poverty and shit social services they don’t have individuals committing random mass murders like us because they don’t have a collection of high capacity personal arms. There’s plenty of people in other countries that have commonality with his life, yet they don’t commit mass murder. Yeah, shootings do happen elsewhere…but not like in the US, and the difference is access to firearms.
But muh well regulated militia!
If you want to ban guns you need to ban metals and CNCs, will buying a CNC require a gun license and a clear criminal record?
Always the extremes with you, trying to make everything zero sum or a binary choice. There’s no room for reason and moderation if your go-to is pounding the table with the nuclear option every time.
I’m saying, if you prohibit somebody from buying a gun, I’d they’re really dedicated they can easily build it themselves. Do you ban steel because 0.0001% of the population could bypass gun restrictions?
Keep trying bro. Again, the hyperbole. There is no perfect solution. No, you don’t enact absurd bans. But you don’t make perfect the enemy of good enough by saying an imperfect solution isn’t an acceptable solution. I’m not interested in discussing your CNC or steel hyperbole.
In the UK knife crime is a big issue for those in poverty or those in struggling cities. Having access to weapons of course increases risks of people dying ot those weapons, but removing guns isn’t going to just convince everyone trying to lash out to just lie down and suffer in silence.
I don’t live in a contry with civilan access to guns, and I don’t live in a situation where I feel the need to protect myself with weapons, so I’m not gonna stake a claim in the gun control debate. But if you ban every weapon ever conceivable, without addressing why people are becoming violent to begin with, people will just result to using their own hands (or perhaps more realistically, going above the legal means. Like with Shinzo Abe’s assassination).
ok, kill as many people as he did with a knife.
Right, let’s keep pretending it’s about the weapon over actual program solving.
removed by mod
If only there were other factors which could impact the highlighted systemic issues… perhaps Canada’s notable single-payer healthcare system, social safety nets, etc. impacting the desperation and providing help?
It is about the weapon. If someone wanted to inflict a lot of damage, they would use bombs. That has happened several times in the past but doesn’t compare to the number of mass shootings. Why? Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful. It really is that simple. Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.
The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.
deleted by creator
Lol, gl with that. In the meantime other people are still allowed to set more reasonable and feasible goalposts.
Right, like bringing about constitutional amendments requiring a majority of states and Congresspeople instead of a change which simply requires a majority of Congresspeople.
So much more feasible.
deleted by creator
Because guns are simply just plentiful and easy to get, and too many apologetics keep allowing them to be plentiful.
You seem to be close to a moment of understanding here but not quite getting it. You seem to recognize that there are other tools available to affect such disastrous outcomes we’d be doing nothing to address, but to also pretend that there’s no indication nor chance anyone would use any of these other tools.
You seem to recognize the futility of the whack-a-mole game while recognizing its existence.
Yes it doesn’t fix society’s underlying issues but that is a MUCH harder problem to solve than simply getting rid of (as many) guns (as possible), or at least not just allow so mamy people to own them willy nilly.
It really isn’t. How much effort do you believe will be required to bring about an amendment to the constitution of the United States?
How much less effort will be required to bring about simple legislative changes? By simple comparison of the two vectors of change, one of them is unquestionably easier than the other. Spoiler: It isn’t undoing the 2nd amendment.
Interestingly enough, you seem to double-down on the previous recognition the problem - pressures toward mass violence - would be left unaddressed but with the vast majority of options for mass harm still very much present and ignored.
The goal is to drastically reduce the number of innocent lives being taken ASAP, not to argue about weapons or social ills or all of this other nonsense.
Which is more effective: A change which is quite impossible to bring about, or a change which can be brought about with some difficulty and compromise?
Which is more effective: A change which removes one of unbounded options to bring about a given end, or a change which reduces the count of people seeking to bring about a given end with any tool available?
We both know you know the answer.
That not the point. Ideally we just wouldn’t have people doing this to begin with, right?
deleted by creator
He typed It poorly, but I think his point was: Try to kill 30 children in a school with a knife.
If the person wants to kill, they will kill, but a gun (a big gun even) will make this task, orders of magnitude easier.
deleted by creator
The point isn’t If it’s bad or not, of course it’s all bad.
But If I had to notify 30 families of their deceased parents over 1 family, the choice is obvious.
You are right the guns won’t shoot anyone by themselves, but they’re very much an easy access to whoever wants to mass kill people.
Trying to solve people’s heads is a long term effort, and taking away guns is a short term bandaid. The thing is people are dying Now, you need to save people now, while simultaneously trying to solve the root problem.
If you’re thinking only talking to people Now, will help anyone, we’re in for many more kill streaks
deleted by creator
try reading before commenting next time, i find it helps me not look like a fucktard
What’s your angle. is 1 murder bad or 20? its all Bad. but you are arguing about efficiency. what are you planning to say to a loved one when they get stabbed?
“yo lol at least they didn’t shoot up the place, thanks for taking that stabbing for the team?”
i hope you have to pay that tax. ill even give up my guns to see it happen. Oooh Wait. Why is that statement Baaaad? No one wants to be killed. and when you sigh of relief that it fewer murders happen instead of none at all makes you a joke of a human.
what the fuck is this incoherent pile of sludge
deleted by creator
you are pathetic
Yeah, you treat the symptom, but in an effective way. It’s called mass shooting, because so many people die, when guns are involved. You do not have this, if there is someone trying the same with a knife. Banning guns is a band aid during the time necessary to fix the underlying problem.
It’s also impossible given the state of partisan gridlock and the constitutional amendment necessary.
Fortunately, actually solving problems here is far simpler than asinine bans.
There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:
Too often in politics it becomes an either-or proposition. Gun control or mental health. Our research says that none of these solutions is perfect on its own. We have to do multiple things at one time and put them together as a comprehensive package. People have to be comfortable with complexity and that’s not always easy.
There will still be kids slipping through. They also say it themselves:
Indeed.
So, what’s more effective?
Reducing the scope of those seeking to commit such atrocities to a small fraction of those now, or hoping for improvement via symptom whack-a-mole?
At least with a knife, you can’t mow down a room full of people. Here in the U.S. dozens of people can be killed in a short time by a single person due to guns. We give them out like candy.
Both access to guns (force multiplier) and the underlying issue (poverty, lack of social mobility, etc) need to be addressed.
I wasn’t aware candy required going through a background check and being a legal adult.
I guess I’ve been trick or treating in the wrong neighborhoods…
Well, yeah. I’ll take your word on the issue of US gun control.
However, if we want to tackle both these issues it’s probably a bad habit to redirect the conversation to gun control when we are talking about the motivations a situations that are generating the violent outbursts to begin with, since gun control gets a hell of alot more talk anyway, while societal issues keep getting pushed away from the collective spotlight, and are usally coming from underprivileged postions that stuggle to get a word in to begin with.
I agree, which is why I usually bring up both when it makes sense to do so.
I hate the argument people make sometimes, “Anything can be a weapon, I could go around stabbing people with a pencil if I really wanted to. Even if you banned guns, it wouldn’t matter.” Yeah, except you can’t kill dozens of people within a few minutes with a pencil. We’ve got huge problems with economic disparity, a quiet epidemic of mental health disorders with little means to help the people that need it, coupled with ridiculously easy access to high-powered firearms in our country. There will never be enough “good people with guns” to protect the world. We need to reduce access to gun ownership to prevent mentally unbalanced people from having such powerful weapons at their disposal for when they eventually snap (since they’ll never have access to treatment), but that’s just a pipe dream at this point in time in America.
I had believed in the good guy with a gun idea until a citizen trying to stop a shooter by shooting back got himself shot by the police. Then I imagined myself in the position of the police in that scenario. It’s not neat and tidy. It gets worse as I imagine more people getting involved with their own firearms.
In a small space where everyone can see everyone, the aggressor is clear. I think of the guy who tried to rob a gun store. Everyone there hears what he said and sees how he’s acting. As soon as someone walks in without seeing the situation unfold, it becomes messy really fast.
deleted by creator
“Any is too many” - obviously we don’t want anyone murdered, but good luck doing anything to completely stop that. People kill for any number of reasons, it’s happened since the beginning of time. Someone says something under his breath and gets killed waiting in a fast food line by somebody they’ve never met before. A jealous ex-lover shows up at a party and stabs their ex to death. A calculating spouse poisons their SO to collect insurance money. A soldier sees someone wearing the enemy uniform and shoots. Someone goes off the deep end and shoots up a music festival and kills 58 people in a matter of minutes. A troubled teen goes into a school and kills dozens of kindergarteners in their classrooms. All those are tragedies and seemingly daily occurrences, but the low-hanging fruit here is quantity. Saving more people in less amount of time is better. Utopia can wait, people need helped now.
deleted by creator
One of the problems with arguments made by gun control opponents is that they concoct these ridiculous all-or-nothing scenarios. Like, we obviously can’t enact any sort of solution unless it’s a Magic Bullet that universally solves every problem ever that humanity has ever faced. If a solution doesn’t solve world hunger, prevent accidental overdoses, car accidents, acid showers, lightning strikes, or cure cancer, then obviously it’s doomed to failure.
Or even attempting to do ANYTHING at all about the problem is just the first step in jack-booted Government thugs kicking down you front door, dragging your grandmother out, raping her in the street and then shooting your kids and your dogs… for reasons. OR, we can’t talk about gun control solutions because obviously we’ll start illegalizing knives, acid (?), and cars next, just like they’ve done in all the countries of the world that have gun control, like those hellholes in Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada. OR, if anybody anywhere dies from a shooting after enacting gun control legislation, then obviously it was a failure and a waste of time, why did we even bother?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Here are the names and pictures of the victims. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-shooting-victims-school/index.html
And what of the vast majority of shooters who don’t have such shit circumstances? Lmfao.
Columbine? Las Vegas?
What about the straight up racists going on killing sprees? Aka white people who listen to too much am radio and YouTube?
Congrats, you’ve cherry picked one of like two well known shooters who were like this. Quit victim blaming you rotten fuck.
Edit: For more visibility. I’ve been to my fair share of active threat conferences, meetings, trainings, etc.
There is no single profile for a mass shooter. Your best chance at getting any one thing correct about them is that they’re male. 94% chance.
According to the FBI, there is no single warning sign, checklist,or algorithm to identify a mass shooter before an attack.
How about some possible profiles?
This profile includes characteristics such as:
• A young white male who feels entitled and has been bullied
• Access to guns in the home
• An honor roll student from a good community
• Intolerant attitudes toward racial or religious minorities
• Possesses a superiority attitude
• Poor coping skills
• Exhibits distorted thinking relative to the negativity he perceives from others
PDF Warnings:
https://lhatrustfunds.com/assets/uploads/documents/FBI-Profile-Active-Shooter.pdf
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view
Okay, what about mental health aspects? Yes, suicidality is an incredible predictor. But guess what? It’s only there in 30% of cases prior to the shooting.
Suicidality was found to be a strong predictor of perpetration of mass shootings. Of all mass shooters in the The Violence Project database, 30% were suicidal prior to the shooting. An additional 39% were suicidal during the shooting. Those numbers were significantly higher for younger shooters, with K-12 students who engaged in mass shootings found to be suicidal in 92% of instances and college/university students who engaged in mass shooting suicidal 100% of the time.
Oh no it must’ve been trauma then! Everyone knows someone who suffered abuse is more likely to abuse right!? No.
In terms of past trauma, 31% of persons who perpetrated mass shootings were found to have experiences of severe childhood trauma, and over 80% were in crisis
Want to know the real profile? Massive change in personality. Wants access to guns. They’ll TELL someone they’re thinking about hurting others. Loneliness.
NONE of which requires anything even remotely mentioned in that farce of a greentext lol.
Let’s not pretend the incredibly common pattern only consists of two people while pretending an actual outlier - Vegas - is somehow common.
You respond as if in disagreement yet the article affirms everything I’ve said lol.
There is no single profile for a mass shooter. Your best chance at getting any one thing correct about them is that they’re male. 94% chance.
According to the FBI, there is no single warning sign, checklist,or algorithm to identify a mass shooter before an attack.
How about some possible profiles?
This profile includes characteristics such as:
• A young white male who feels entitled and has been bullied
• Access to guns in the home
• An honor roll student from a good community
• Intolerant attitudes toward racial or religious minorities
• Possesses a superiority attitude
• Poor coping skills
• Exhibits distorted thinking relative to the negativity he perceives from others
PDF Warnings:
https://lhatrustfunds.com/assets/uploads/documents/FBI-Profile-Active-Shooter.pdf
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view
Okay, what about mental health aspects? Yes, suicidality is an incredible predictor. But guess what? It’s only there in 30% of cases prior to the shooting.
Suicidality was found to be a strong predictor of perpetration of mass shootings. Of all mass shooters in the The Violence Project database, 30% were suicidal prior to the shooting. An additional 39% were suicidal during the shooting. Those numbers were significantly higher for younger shooters, with K-12 students who engaged in mass shootings found to be suicidal in 92% of instances and college/university students who engaged in mass shooting suicidal 100% of the time.
Oh no it must’ve been trauma then! Everyone knows someone who suffered abuse is more likely to abuse right!? No.
In terms of past trauma, 31% of persons who perpetrated mass shootings were found to have experiences of severe childhood trauma, and over 80% were in crisis
Want to know the real profile? Massive change in personality. Wants access to guns. They’ll TELL someone they’re thinking about hurting others. Loneliness.
NONE of which requires anything even remotely mentioned in that farce of a greentext lol.
You respond as if in disagreement yet the article affirms everything I’ve said lol.
There is no single profile for a mass shooter. Your best chance at getting any one thing correct about them is that they’re male. 94% chance.
I’d be interested in your reasoning here as the article summarily disagrees with your first statement; it highlights an incredible degree of commonality among mass shooters above and beyond “male”.
You’d have to read it to know that, I suppose.
I’m glad you found the copy/paste buttons, but I do wish you’d bothered to read up.
No, no it doesn’t. And you’re beyond seeing reason at this point so good luck out there lol. Happy Halloween!
I see we’re projecting in our assessments. I can understand how being confronted with proof one’s opinion is wrong, may you deal with it with grace in the future.
Determinism is a helluva drug…
But seriously, we gotta look at the structural issues at play in things like this. A lot of gun control advocates want to point at things like this, and say, see, this shit doesn’t happen in any other country in the world, obviously the guns are the problem, we need to take the guns! But when you look at other countries, you see that the US is one of the few that has both guns and almost no social safety nets. The proposed solution on the left is never “fix the problems that lead to crime and violence”; rather, it’s “take the tools used to commit crime and violence”
You can use the facile response of saying, no, this is all on Cruz, he made a choice. And it’s true, kind of, except that his choices were significantly constrained by the social conditions that were imposed on him. That’s not saying that what he did was right, nor does it make it the ‘fault’ of the people he victimized. But things like this simply do not happen in a vacuum.
Here’s another way of looking at it.
If you take a dog as a puppy, starve it, leave it outside all the time, ignore it, kick it, never give it any positive interaction, and always punish it for any ‘infraction’ when you’ve never put in any time to teach it better, are you going to be surprised when it mauls someone? Why do you expect any other animal to behave better than a dog just because it walks upright and has no fur?
The proposed solution on the left is never “fix the problems that lead to crime and violence”; rather, it’s “take the tools used to commit crime and violence”
What left are you talking about? Social issues and solving them is generally by definition leftist. If one suggests it they get called socialist/communist in the US even if they’re closer to center if compared to rest of the world.
We also discuss the issue of tons of crime being caused by poverty and lack of social nets, especially when discussing police brutality and the like. Now many of the members of congress people consider/accuse of being leftists are really just centrists, or close to it, or people who want to maintain their power, get votes, not really change the status quo. I’d say they match your definition, but if you’re saying leftists don’t want social solutions then you either haven’t been talking to leftists, or you aren’t fully listening.
I actually question what left you’re talking about lol. Outside the internet, the American left does NOT talk safety nets unless they’re one of the furthest left voices. Leftists are a very small minority in the US.
As I said in response to someone else: what passes for the left says that they want this, until the rubber meets the road. Criminal justice reform/defund the police? That’s great, until you have a lot of homeless people scaring the Good, Decent, Upstanding citizens. High-density, affordable housing? Oh no, not in my charming, turn-of-the-century neighborhood, that would ruin it’s charm and wreck my property values! MLK Jr. said that the white liberals were the enemy, and–as a white leftist–he was right!
Republicans are honest; they want to fuck everyone over as long as they make a buck, or believe that they’re doing their god’s will.
Personally, I side with the anarchists that are at least trying to work within their communities to make shit better in whatever small ways they can.
What is agreeable for social safety net(s) from the perspective of conservatives?
Single payer healthcare? Universal Basic Income? More expansive food subsidies? More expansive housing subsidies?
What is not considered “government hand out” that we can all agree on?
Personally, IDGAF what social/fiscal regressives are okay with. We’ve been doing this shitty form of capitalism too long where we put profits ahead of people, and that needs to be ended.
Bad faith argument. The Left is very much pro-social safety nets and pro-mental health supports. It’s kind of our whole fucking thing aside from worker’s having ownership of their labor.
The issue is not enough Americans understand the basic function of government, let alone how new policy becomes law, let alone how fucked they’re getting by their government and not having the werewithall to understand that they’ve had their social safety nets eroded consistently by Republican politicians since the Nixon era or earlier. So the only answer that seems to stick in the minds of anyone is 'libruls wanna take my guns away!" well, yeah, take the guns away of the known criminals and known mental cases because we’re not making much headway on the “improving social safety nets” part of the plan.
No, the left says that it’s in favor of this shit. It never does that, even when they have total control over a state. (Specifically, what passes for the left in the US; I can’t really speak for what the left is doing elsewhere in the world.) Look at California, where Dems have a supermajority; the things that they say they want, like affordable housing for everyone, walkable, high-density cities, good public transit, public education that works, police/criminal justice reform, etc., aren’t getting done because everyone gets all NIMBY when it’s near them, and people are losing their goddamn minds over homeless people just existing.
OTOH, they’re more than fine with taking away the right to keep and bear arms.
At least Republicans are completely up-front about being awful shitbags.
Just because the right likes to screech about how your centrists are extreme leftitists doesn’t change the fact they aren’t leftists. It’s just a smokescreen for the rightwing to cover just how extreme they’ve become.
You can call them whatever you want, but Dems are what passes for the left in the US.
If you’re going to move the goalposts and say that Dems aren’t the left, then you also can’t rationally say that the left is doing anything at all, since the left in the US has never had any real power then.
Dont glamourize mass murderers.Dont even publish their names, publish the names of the victims.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nooooo! We can’t help people who are in a shit situation in life, that’s communism …because rightwingers said so! And that’s baaaad …b-because it just is okay?
Tax money should only go towards private corporations that don’t make our lifes better! This person was a bad person, and I can’t stomach thinking my tax money could have gone towards getting them the help they needed and completely averting the horrible things they did! My tax is much better going to the military industrial complex so we can help bomb kids even better!
I for one think it’s billaint that western societies are set up to regularlly leave people behind with no way to escape their situation! And when these poeple act up instead of just sitting around to die a slow painful, but conveniently quiet death, we should act like their motivations are completely incompressible! Because we all know hte alternative is to change a society that we have thrived in, and then we might not thrive as much!
“fail ASVAB” aside, this is true
We always had lots of guns, why are mass shootings a modern phenomenon?
I think we should regulate them the way we do cars. But also there’s clearly some underlying issue. Maybe cultural where people see guns as a way to escape or see them as part of their personality.
Because old guns took 30 seconds to reload one bullet and were inaccurate past like 3 meters
I think they meant like 1970, not 1870.
I’m seeing a lot of shootings since the 80s. Guns get better and people get more fucked up mentally. America chooses to fix neither.
You could walk into a gun store and buy a fully automatic submachinegun until 1986.
oh yeah? you could get that $200 tax stamp right there huh? National Firearms Act of 1934 was a thing in 1986 bro.
maybe you could get your ffl to arrange for it ahead of time, using the info from your previous stamp applications…
but the tax stamp still took time, stop acting like it was easy as picking up a cheeseburger. deliberately promoting the idea that fully automatic firearms were all over, it’s just the crazy people today that’s the problem, is facile bullshit.
I do agree that guns should be regulated like cars with mass shootings by social outcasts from my understanding are trying to get back at society and even if you straight up ban guns what’s stopping the outcast from doing a mas stabbing instead gun regulation is just a nesesary speed bump for people that want to hunt people same thing with gun bans as they are used by militarys and illegal sales and manufacturing will just skyrocket
It’s a hell of a lot harder to commit a mass stabbing compared to a mass shooting. And funnily enough, mass stabbings are rare in countries that have strict gun regulations. It’s almost like it’s a non-issue created by pro-gun advocates to distract from the weekly mass shootings in the US.
This just isn’t true. A knife is far more concealable, far more stealthy in the aftermath of a shank and move (look at prison shankings going unnoticed all the time), and far more likely to cause death. China literally has a mass stabbing problem. Generally targeted at elementary age children. One specifically killing 33 and injuring 130. You’re just falling for propaganda rhetoric.
In self defense knives increase the chance to injure or kill yourself over a gun or with just your hands, increase the fatality rate for any stabbed over being shot, and rarely lose against anything in close quarters (hence why you run from knives but try and redirect the barrel a gun when possible). Dirks and daggers are well known to be one of the most dangerous weapons created and were literally outlawed throughout history, in some places even currently.
weekly mass shootings in the US.
We average more than 1 per day and have for a few years now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023
That’s just sad.
UK acid throwers enter the chat.
It’s almost as if mass shootings increase with the number of guns in circulation
they have no answer for it. turns out, the good guy with a gun is either a myth for morons, or, more guns ain’t making anything better.
huh.
are you dumb enough to believe there’s an equivalence or just shit posting because you don’t care?
They’re pointing out that correlation isn’t causation. For example, what if shootings are scaring people into buying more guns?
No, they’re just shit posting because they don’t want anyone to question their fetish. When you care about firearms more than dead children, it’s some kind of sick obsession and you need therapy.
I mean that is part of it. The NRA has people living in a collective delusion. This delusion appeals particularly to people who are dejected or vulnerable because it gives them something like an ego safety net. So when the inevitable happens, and some of these people “snap,” they have nearly ubiquitous tools available to make it everyone else’s problem.
Gun availability is a big part of the problem, but the even bigger issue is the culture of fear the NRA and Republican politicians have pushed to sell more guns, and how that intersects with other social ills in the US.
Narcissism.
Cruzeiro lê snipper mein kampfyre
I fail to see the relevance of this post and it comes off as if people want to victim blame. A lot of people have problems. A lot of people get bullied. Just think about the thousands of women who get raped and sexually abused throughout their lifes.
Mass shooter fit a profile, sure. They obviously aren’t happy people. But the reason why they do this is not what has happened to them in their lifes. Otherwise we would have a lot more mass shooters.
A lot more mass shooters? You mean like we’ve got? The number is going up, is that not a good indicator at an external factor?
Yeah, there would be orders of magnitude more mass shooters if everyone with a garbage childhood and an intellectual challenge followed this path. It is the tiny minority of such people who take the terrorist path.
But the reason why they do this is not what has happened to them in their lifes.
What other fuckin’ reason is there? Everyone is precisely how they are because of the sum total of their life experiences and the results of their genetic lottery.
Because a lot of people have struggles and only few are becoming murderers or hurt people in other ways. Murderes, at some point in their lifes, decided it is okay to hurt others. That is the deciding factor.
I think you’re missing the point in that we already have a lot of mass shooters because society has failed them.
This is a symptom of our society.
Trying to absolve society of its involvement is essentially just turning a blind eye to the problem and hoping it goes away. Which is exactly the problem that we have.
This is simply taking an actual nuanced thought on the situation instead of letting your emotions regulate your thoughts and turning everything into a false dichotomy.
instead of letting your emotions regulate your thoughts and turning everything into a false dichotomy.
Well said.
Also, seems like a lot of people here on Lemmy fall for that, unfortunately.
It is not society which is failing when people turn to murder it’s the people who turn to murder who are failing.
The focus should be on why a few people decide it’s okay to hate other groups of people so much, that they murder them.
To believe it’s society’s fault people are turning into murderes and now it’s society’s responsibility to dissolve each and every problem anyone could have ever is completely unrealistic.
People will always have problems. And there will always be people who believe other lives are worth less. It’s much more likely to be able to do something against the latter than doing something against people having problems.
But the reason why they do this is not what has happened to them in their lifes.
We are our memories.
We are the decisions we make. Each person is the sum of how they react to stimulus.
We are the decisions we make.
And we make those decisions based on our life experiences, also known as memories.
We have enough examples of (mass) murderes who did not have horrible lives and so many people have horrible lives and don’t kill others.
It’s illogical to draw the conclusion it’s a bad life that turns people into murderes.
A better course of action would be higher intervention at the point were someone decides: “others should suffer for my problems”.
We have enough examples of (mass) murderes who did not have horrible lives
I’m something of a news junkie and I haven’t heard of them. Maybe there’s a one-off here or there, but the majority of them would not have what you described.
and so many people have horrible lives and don’t kill others.
Well yes, of course. Mental illness is a spectrum, it’s a bell curve, it’s not an on and off switch, when it comes to murder.
It’s illogical to draw the conclusion it’s a bad life that turns people into murderes.
I disagree with this, strongly.
Honestly that sounds like an opinion of someone who believes illogically in that we’re always “captains of our ship” and we’re always perfect mentally, and that we always can make decisions free of illness.
Humanity is just not like that, we have emotions and can have mental illness, and sometimes they drive us to do things that we regret later on or uncontrolling of during.
Mental illness can affect our perception of things to the point where we do things that seem logical to us but that society would think is completely illogical, like murder.
I think you have trouble differentiating between causes and fault or responsibility. English is not my native language, so perhaps I get the inuendo wrong. But claiming “Cruz’ crime was 100 % society’s fault” absolves the murderer of all his responsibility.
Society is not responsible for the decisions you make, it’s your decision alone. You don’t get to blame others for your decisions to hurt and murder people.
I think you have trouble differentiating between causes and fault or responsibility.
Very dismissal of you to think that of me.
For the record, I don’t.
“Cruz’ crime was 100 % society’s fault”
Nobody ever said 100%.
Society is not responsible for the decisions you make, it’s your decision alone.
We affect each other more than we realise and/or want to admit. Humans are social creatures.
And again, not talking in absolutes.
